Recent Judicial Decisions
| Author | J. C. Wood |
| Published date | 01 October 1972 |
| Date | 01 October 1972 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X7204500410 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR
J.
C.
WOOD,
LL.M.
The University of Sheffield
Legal Correspondent
of
The Police Journal
RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
HOLIDAY DEPOSITS
R. v.
Hall
(1972) 136 J.P. 593 Court of Appeal
The facts of this case present a fairly common situation. Hall
was a travel agent who took money from customers as deposits
or pre-payment of air flights to America. The flights never trans-
pired and Hall was unable to pay back the monies. He was
charged with theft. The kernel of the charge is the point set out
"Where
aperson receives property
from
or on account of
another
and
is
under
an obligation to
the
other
to retain and deal with the property
or proceeds in a particular way, the property or proceeds shall be
regarded (as against him) as belonging to
the
other
.....
"
If
s. 5(3) applied to the facts, theft could be established. Hall
was convicted and appealed.
The first point taken by the Court of Appeal was that the trial
Judge had not made clear to the jury that the appropriation
had to be dishonest at the time of appropriation. The Court
accepted the point
but
did not think the summing up, though
not too clear, erred on it.
The crucial point was whether s. 5(3) applied.
It
was argued
for the defence that there is a distinction between the treasurer
of special funds and a business relationship such as that of
travel agent. The Court of Appeal stressed that where the
recipient put the money is not important. The fact that Hall
paid it into a general business account does not mean he
had
the right to. This was made clear under the old Larceny Act,
1916, in
R.
v.
Yule
the particular terms of the transaction. Here they felt there was
no special obligation in relation to the money. They could
envisage situations where this might be so. The appeal was
allowed.
NOTE
Despite the
Theft
Act 1968, we find
Edmund
Davies, L.J., saying in this
case,
"We
are
only
too aware that, in the result, there will be
many
clients
of
the
defendant who, regarding themselves as cheated
out
of their
money
by him, will think little of a law which permits him to go unpunished".
The
reason why is clear. In such situations there has to be
fraud
(to
bring
the
case
under
obtaining by deception) or the obligation in respect
of the money paid set out in s. 5(3).
The
Theft
Act did
not
set
out
to
give criminal backing to all commercial misfortune.
How
far
the criminal
law should do so is an interesting theoretical question. '
October 1972 312
To continue reading
Request your trial